Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.02 (2026)

State waives immunity from liability

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(A)(1) The state hereby waives its immunity from liability, except as provided for the office of the state fire marshal in division (G)(1) of section 9.60 and division (B) of section 3737.221 of the Revised Code and subject to division (H) of this section, and consents to be sued, and have its liability determined, in the court of claims created in this chapter in accordance with the same rules of law applicable to suits between private parties, except that the determination of liability is subject to the limitations set forth in this chapter and, in the case of state universities or colleges, in section 3345.40 of the Revised Code, and except as provided in division (A)(2) or (3) of this section. To the extent that the state has previously consented to be sued, this chapter has no applicability.

Except in the case of a civil action filed by the state, filing a civil action in the court of claims results in a complete waiver of any cause of action, based on the same act or omission, that the filing party has against any officer or employee, as defined in section 109.36 of the Revised Code. The waiver shall be void if the court determines that the act or omission was manifestly outside the scope of the officer's or employee's office or employment or that the officer or employee acted with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner.

(2) If a claimant proves in the court of claims that an officer or employee, as defined in section 109.36 of the Revised Code, would have personal liability for the officer's or employee's acts or omissions but for the fact that the officer or employee has personal immunity under section 9.86 of the Revised Code, the state shall be held liable in the court of claims in any action that is timely filed pursuant to section 2743.16 of the Revised Code and that is based upon the acts or omissions.

(3)(a) Except as provided in division (A)(3)(b) of this section, the state is immune from liability in any civil action or proceeding involving the performance or nonperformance of a public duty, including the performance or nonperformance of a public duty that is owed by the state in relation to any action of an individual who is committed to the custody of the state.

(b) The state immunity provided in division (A)(3)(a) of this section does not apply to any action of the state under circumstances in which a special relationship can be established between the state and an injured party. A special relationship under this division is demonstrated if all of the following elements exist:

(i) An assumption by the state, by means of promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was allegedly injured;

(ii) Knowledge on the part of the state's agents that inaction of the state could lead to harm;

(iii) Some form of direct contact between the state's agents and the injured party;

(iv) The injured party's justifiable reliance on the state's affirmative undertaking.

(B) The state hereby waives the immunity from liability of all hospitals owned or operated by one or more political subdivisions and consents for them to be sued, and to have their liability determined, in the court of common pleas, in accordance with the same rules of law applicable to suits between private parties, subject to the limitations set forth in this chapter. This division is also applicable to hospitals owned or operated by political subdivisions that have been determined by the supreme court to be subject to suit prior to July 28, 1975.

(C) Any hospital, as defined in section 2305.113 of the Revised Code, may purchase liability insurance covering its operations and activities and its agents, employees, nurses, interns, residents, staff, and members of the governing board and committees, and, whether or not such insurance is purchased, may, to the extent that its governing board considers appropriate, indemnify or agree to indemnify and hold harmless any such person against expense, including attorney's fees, damage, loss, or other liability arising out of, or claimed to have arisen out of, the death, disease, or injury of any person as a result of the negligence, malpractice, or other action or inaction of the indemnified person while acting within the scope of the indemnified person's duties or engaged in activities at the request or direction, or for the benefit, of the hospital. Any hospital electing to indemnify those persons, or to agree to so indemnify, shall reserve any funds that are necessary, in the exercise of sound and prudent actuarial judgment, to cover the potential expense, fees, damage, loss, or other liability. The superintendent of insurance may recommend, or, if the hospital requests the superintendent to do so, the superintendent shall recommend, a specific amount for any period that, in the superintendent's opinion, represents such a judgment. This authority is in addition to any authorization otherwise provided or permitted by law.

(D) Recoveries against the state shall be reduced by the aggregate of insurance proceeds, disability award, or other collateral recovery that the claimant receives or is entitled to. This division does not apply to civil actions in the court of claims against a state university or college under the circumstances described in section 3345.40 of the Revised Code. The collateral benefits provisions of division (B)(2) of that section apply under those circumstances.

(E) The only defendant in original actions in the court of claims is the state. The state may file a third-party complaint or counterclaim in any civil action, except a civil action for ten thousand dollars or less, that is filed in the court of claims.

(F) A civil action against an officer or employee, as defined in section 109.36 of the Revised Code, that alleges that the officer's or employee's conduct was manifestly outside the scope of the officer's or employee's employment or official responsibilities, or that the officer or employee acted with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner shall first be filed against the state in the court of claims that has exclusive, original jurisdiction to determine, initially, whether the officer or employee is entitled to personal immunity under section 9.86 of the Revised Code and whether the courts of common pleas have jurisdiction over the civil action. The officer or employee may participate in the immunity determination proceeding before the court of claims to determine whether the officer or employee is entitled to personal immunity under section 9.86 of the Revised Code.

The filing of a claim against an officer or employee under this division tolls the running of the applicable statute of limitations until the court of claims determines whether the officer or employee is entitled to personal immunity under section 9.86 of the Revised Code.

(G) If a claim lies against an officer or employee who is a member of the Ohio national guard, and the officer or employee was, at the time of the act or omission complained of, subject to the "Federal Tort Claims Act," 60 Stat. 842 (1946), 28 U.S.C. 2671, et seq., the Federal Tort Claims Act is the exclusive remedy of the claimant and the state has no liability under this section.

(H) If an inmate of a state correctional institution has a claim against the state for the loss of or damage to property and the amount claimed does not exceed three hundred dollars, before commencing an action against the state in the court of claims, the inmate shall file a claim for the loss or damage under the rules adopted by the director of rehabilitation and correction pursuant to this division. The inmate shall file the claim within the time allowed for commencement of a civil action under section 2743.16 of the Revised Code. If the state admits or compromises the claim, the director shall make payment from a fund designated by the director for that purpose. If the state denies the claim or does not compromise the claim at least sixty days prior to expiration of the time allowed for commencement of a civil action based upon the loss or damage under section 2743.16 of the Revised Code, the inmate may commence an action in the court of claims under this chapter to recover damages for the loss or damage.

The director of rehabilitation and correction shall adopt rules pursuant to Chapter 119. of the Revised Code to implement this division.

Last updated August 9, 2021 at 11:25 AM

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 827 cases (142 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: Wallace v. Ohio Dep't of Com., 96 Ohio St. 3d 266 (Ohio 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wallace v. Ohio Dep't of Com., 96 Ohio St. 3d 266 (Ohio 2002). · cites it 44× “Analogizing to its earlier holdings concerning the limitations on the abrogation of municipal immunity, this court rejected the notion that the General Assembly’s abrogation of sovereign immunity in R.C. 2743.02 extended to essential acts of governmental decisionmaking.”
Smith v. Ohio State Univ., 2024 Ohio 764 (Ohio 2024). · cites it 37× “In particular, “this court rejected the notion that the General Assembly’s abrogation of sovereign immunity in R.C. 2743.02 extended to essential acts of governmental decisionmaking.”
Conley v. Shearer, 595 N.E.2d 862 (Ohio 1992). · cites it 26× “(R.C. 2743.02[A][1], construed and applied.”
Cmty. Ins. v. Ohio Dep't of Transp., 750 N.E.2d 573 (Ohio 2001). · cites it 38× “The parties disagree as to the proper construction of R.C. 2743.02, which provides: “(D) Recoveries against the state shall be reduced by the aggregate of insurance proceeds, disability award, or other collateral recovery received by the claimant.”
State ex rel. Sawicki v. Court of Common Pleas of Lucas Cty., 2010 Ohio 3299 (Ohio 2010). · cites it 30× “We must therefore determine whether the statute, which grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Court of Claims in particular instances, applies to a medical- negligence case in which a claim is brought solely against a private employer on grounds of respondeat superior.”
Rooney v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 2017 Ohio 1123 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 25× “Rooney and to overcome immunity as provided by division (A)(3)(b) of R.C. 2743.02. {¶ 8} Dr. Rooney responded that the Patrol's claim of immunity "after it blatantly failed to dispatch a trooper to a report of a drunk driver defies principles of law, public policy, and common…”
Johns v. Univ. of Cincinnati Med. Assocs., Inc., 804 N.E.2d 19 (Ohio 2004). · cites it 17× “02 and added subsection (F), which now provides: {¶ 23} “A civil action against an officer or employee [of the state] * * * that alleges that the officer’s or employee’s conduct was manifestly outside the scope of the officer’s or employee’s employment or official…”
Conley v. Shearer, 1992 Ohio 133 (Ohio 1992). · cites it 29× “(R.C. 2743.02[A][1], construed and applied.”
Reynolds v. State, 471 N.E.2d 776 (Ohio 1984). · cites it 12× “1 The Court of Claims dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint, finding that R.C. 2743.02 2 does not create a cause of action against the state in this area, and further that because there was no penalty provision contained in R.”
State ex rel. Sawicki v. Court of Common Pleas of Lucas Cty., 2009 Ohio 1523 (Ohio 2009). · cites it 12× “02 “also files a claim for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, or other equitable relief against the state that arises out of the same circumstances that gave rise to the civil action described in division (A)(1) of this section, the court of claims has exclusive, original…”
Tschantz v. Ferguson, 550 N.E.2d 544 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 18× “By R.C. 2743.02, the state waives its immunity and consents to be sued according to the provisions contained in that section.”
Zavinski v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2019 Ohio 1735 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 29× “Assignments of Error {¶ 19} Monique assigns the following error for our review: The trial court erred to the prejudice of Plaintiff by improperly determining that the sum of $885,000 paid to her by uninsured motorist carriers, for the negligence of Pampley, an uninsured…”
Show all 827 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.02(3)(a) — 1 case
Dunlap v. Dept. of Pub. Saf., 2018 Ohio 1501 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2018).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.02(3)(b) — 1 case
Legacy Academy for Leaders v. Mt. Calvary Pentecostal Church, 2013 Ohio 4214 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.02(A) — 48 cases
Wallace v. Ohio Dep't of Com., 96 Ohio St. 3d 266 (Ohio 2002). “Analogizing to its earlier holdings concerning the limitations on the abrogation of municipal immunity, this court rejected the notion that the General Assembly’s abrogation of sovereign immunity in R.C. 2743.02 extended to essential acts of governmental decisionmaking.”
Reynolds v. State, 471 N.E.2d 776 (Ohio 1984). “1 The Court of Claims dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint, finding that R.C. 2743.02 2 does not create a cause of action against the state in this area, and further that because there was no penalty provision contained in R.”
Katko v. Balcerzak, 536 N.E.2d 10 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987).
Combs v. Ohio Dept. of Nat. Resources, Div. of Parks & Rec. (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 1565 (Ohio 2016).
Johnson v. Vill. of New London, 521 N.E.2d 793 (Ohio 1988).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.02(A)(1) — 251 cases
Wallace v. Ohio Dep't of Com., 96 Ohio St. 3d 266 (Ohio 2002). “Analogizing to its earlier holdings concerning the limitations on the abrogation of municipal immunity, this court rejected the notion that the General Assembly’s abrogation of sovereign immunity in R.C. 2743.02 extended to essential acts of governmental decisionmaking.”
Smith v. Ohio State Univ., 2024 Ohio 764 (Ohio 2024). “In particular, “this court rejected the notion that the General Assembly’s abrogation of sovereign immunity in R.C. 2743.02 extended to essential acts of governmental decisionmaking.”
Nease v. Med. Coll. Hospitals, 596 N.E.2d 432 (Ohio 1992).
Morway v. Durkin, 908 N.E.2d 510 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009).
McIntosh v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 493 N.E.2d 321 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.02(A)(2) — 22 cases
State ex rel. Sawicki v. Court of Common Pleas of Lucas Cty., 2009 Ohio 1523 (Ohio 2009). “02 “also files a claim for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, or other equitable relief against the state that arises out of the same circumstances that gave rise to the civil action described in division (A)(1) of this section, the court of claims has exclusive, original…”
Elliott v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 637 N.E.2d 106 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994).
A.M. v. Miami Univ., 2017 Ohio 8586 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
Von Hoene v. State, 486 N.E.2d 868 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985).
Theobald v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 857 N.E.2d 573 (Ohio 2006).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.02(A)(3) — 13 cases
Rooney v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 2017 Ohio 1123 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “Rooney and to overcome immunity as provided by division (A)(3)(b) of R.C. 2743.02. {¶ 8} Dr. Rooney responded that the Patrol's claim of immunity "after it blatantly failed to dispatch a trooper to a report of a drunk driver defies principles of law, public policy, and common…”
Est. of Tokes v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2019 Ohio 1794 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
Rudd v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 2016 Ohio 8263 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
Moore v. ThorWorks Indus., Inc., 2024 Ohio 1617 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
Tokes v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2018 Ohio 4149 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2018).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.02(A)(3)(F) — 1 case
Deane v. Quest Diagnostics LLC (S.D. Ohio 2020).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.02(A)(3)(a) — 27 cases
Rooney v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 2017 Ohio 1123 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “Rooney and to overcome immunity as provided by division (A)(3)(b) of R.C. 2743.02. {¶ 8} Dr. Rooney responded that the Patrol's claim of immunity "after it blatantly failed to dispatch a trooper to a report of a drunk driver defies principles of law, public policy, and common…”
Smith v. Ohio State Univ., 2024 Ohio 764 (Ohio 2024). “In particular, “this court rejected the notion that the General Assembly’s abrogation of sovereign immunity in R.C. 2743.02 extended to essential acts of governmental decisionmaking.”
Est. of Tokes v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2019 Ohio 1794 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
Rudd v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 2016 Ohio 8263 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
Vos v. Ohio Env't Prot. Agency, 2018 Ohio 2956 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.02(A)(3)(b) — 27 cases
Rooney v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 2017 Ohio 1123 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “Rooney and to overcome immunity as provided by division (A)(3)(b) of R.C. 2743.02. {¶ 8} Dr. Rooney responded that the Patrol's claim of immunity "after it blatantly failed to dispatch a trooper to a report of a drunk driver defies principles of law, public policy, and common…”
Rudd v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 2016 Ohio 8263 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
Est. of Tokes v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2019 Ohio 1794 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
Smith v. Ohio State Univ., 2024 Ohio 764 (Ohio 2024). “In particular, “this court rejected the notion that the General Assembly’s abrogation of sovereign immunity in R.C. 2743.02 extended to essential acts of governmental decisionmaking.”
Lawrence v. Meridian Senior Living, L.L.C., 2016 Ohio 8500 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.02(A)(3)(b)(i) — 8 cases
Rudd v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 2016 Ohio 8263 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
Rooney v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 2017 Ohio 1123 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “Rooney and to overcome immunity as provided by division (A)(3)(b) of R.C. 2743.02. {¶ 8} Dr. Rooney responded that the Patrol's claim of immunity "after it blatantly failed to dispatch a trooper to a report of a drunk driver defies principles of law, public policy, and common…”
Vos v. Ohio Env't Prot. Agency, 2018 Ohio 2956 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
Lawrence v. Meridian Senior Living, L.L.C., 2016 Ohio 8500 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
Tokes v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2018 Ohio 4149 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2018).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.02(A)(3)(b)(ii) — 3 cases
Rudd v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 2016 Ohio 8263 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
Conner v. Wright State Univ., 2013 Ohio 5701 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Saf., 2025 Ohio 5648 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.02(A)(3)(b)(iii) — 5 cases
Rooney v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 2017 Ohio 1123 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “Rooney and to overcome immunity as provided by division (A)(3)(b) of R.C. 2743.02. {¶ 8} Dr. Rooney responded that the Patrol's claim of immunity "after it blatantly failed to dispatch a trooper to a report of a drunk driver defies principles of law, public policy, and common…”
Rudd v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 2016 Ohio 8263 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
Conner v. Wright State Univ., 2013 Ohio 5701 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
Ferrell v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 2016 Ohio 5223 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2016).
Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Saf., 2025 Ohio 5648 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.02(A)(3)(b)(iv) — 4 cases
Rooney v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 2017 Ohio 1123 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “Rooney and to overcome immunity as provided by division (A)(3)(b) of R.C. 2743.02. {¶ 8} Dr. Rooney responded that the Patrol's claim of immunity "after it blatantly failed to dispatch a trooper to a report of a drunk driver defies principles of law, public policy, and common…”
Conner v. Wright State Univ., 2013 Ohio 5701 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
Ferrell v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 2016 Ohio 5223 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2016).
Arndts v. Univ. of Cincinnati Dept. of Pub. Saf., 2025 Ohio 5648 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.02(A)(l) — 6 cases
Wallace v. Ohio Dep't of Com., 96 Ohio St. 3d 266 (Ohio 2002). “Analogizing to its earlier holdings concerning the limitations on the abrogation of municipal immunity, this court rejected the notion that the General Assembly’s abrogation of sovereign immunity in R.C. 2743.02 extended to essential acts of governmental decisionmaking.”
Est. of Graves v. City of Circleville, 2010 Ohio 168 (Ohio 2010).
Elliott v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 637 N.E.2d 106 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994).
Morway v. Durkin, 908 N.E.2d 510 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009).
Dettling v. Adams, 575 F. Supp. 2d 842 (N.D. Ohio 2008).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.02(AX1) — 2 cases
Poenisch v. Kingsley-Dunbar, Inc., 582 N.E.2d 1071 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990).
Wilson v. Patton, 583 N.E.2d 410 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.02(B) — 6 cases
Campbell v. Burton, 92 Ohio St. 3d 336 (Ohio 2001).
Campbell v. Burton, 2001 Ohio 206 (Ohio 2001).
Cmty. Ins. v. Ohio Dep't of Transp., 739 N.E.2d 1166 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000).
Fediaczko v. Mahoning Cty. Child. Servs., 2012 Ohio 6095 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
Zavinski v. Dept. of Transp., 2018 Ohio 1503 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2018).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.02(C) — 1 case
Morris v. Savoy, 576 N.E.2d 765 (Ohio 1991).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.02(D) — 81 cases
Cmty. Ins. v. Ohio Dep't of Transp., 750 N.E.2d 573 (Ohio 2001). “The parties disagree as to the proper construction of R.C. 2743.02, which provides: “(D) Recoveries against the state shall be reduced by the aggregate of insurance proceeds, disability award, or other collateral recovery received by the claimant.”
Zavinski v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2019 Ohio 1735 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “Assignments of Error {¶ 19} Monique assigns the following error for our review: The trial court erred to the prejudice of Plaintiff by improperly determining that the sum of $885,000 paid to her by uninsured motorist carriers, for the negligence of Pampley, an uninsured…”
Van Der Veer v. Ohio Dep't of Transp., 680 N.E.2d 230 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996).
Nevins v. Ohio Dep't of Transp., 724 N.E.2d 433 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998).
Cmty. Ins. Co. v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2001 Ohio 208 (Ohio 2001).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.02(E) — 67 cases
Tschantz v. Ferguson, 550 N.E.2d 544 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). “By R.C. 2743.02, the state waives its immunity and consents to be sued according to the provisions contained in that section.”
Johns v. Univ. of Cincinnati Med. Assocs., Inc., 804 N.E.2d 19 (Ohio 2004). “02 and added subsection (F), which now provides: {¶ 23} “A civil action against an officer or employee [of the state] * * * that alleges that the officer’s or employee’s conduct was manifestly outside the scope of the officer’s or employee’s employment or official…”
Littleton v. Holmes Siding Contr., 2013 Ohio 5602 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
Nease v. Med. Coll. Hospitals, 596 N.E.2d 432 (Ohio 1992).
Burr v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 491 N.E.2d 1101 (Ohio 1986).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.02(F) — 210 cases
Conley v. Shearer, 595 N.E.2d 862 (Ohio 1992). “(R.C. 2743.02[A][1], construed and applied.”
State ex rel. Sawicki v. Court of Common Pleas of Lucas Cty., 2010 Ohio 3299 (Ohio 2010). “We must therefore determine whether the statute, which grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Court of Claims in particular instances, applies to a medical- negligence case in which a claim is brought solely against a private employer on grounds of respondeat superior.”
Conley v. Shearer, 1992 Ohio 133 (Ohio 1992). “(R.C. 2743.02[A][1], construed and applied.”
Johns v. Univ. of Cincinnati Med. Assocs., Inc., 804 N.E.2d 19 (Ohio 2004). “02 and added subsection (F), which now provides: {¶ 23} “A civil action against an officer or employee [of the state] * * * that alleges that the officer’s or employee’s conduct was manifestly outside the scope of the officer’s or employee’s employment or official…”
Tschantz v. Ferguson, 550 N.E.2d 544 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). “By R.C. 2743.02, the state waives its immunity and consents to be sued according to the provisions contained in that section.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.02(G) — 1 case
Gleason v. Ohio Army Nat'l Guard, 756 N.E.2d 1243 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.02(H) — 1 case
Taylor v. Chambers-Smith (S.D. Ohio 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.02(f) — 1 case
Powell v. Morris, 184 F.R.D. 591 (S.D. Ohio 1998).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.